Bush Sr. Apologizes To Son For Funding Bin Laden In '80sMIDLAND, TX- Former president George Bush issued an apology to his son Monday for advocating the CIA's mid-'80s funding of Osama bin Laden, who at the time was resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "I'm sorry, son," Bush told President George W. Bush. "We thought it was a good idea at the time because he was part of a group fighting communism in Central Asia. We called them 'freedom fighters' back then. I know it sounds weird. You sort of had to be there." Bush is still deliberating over whether to tell his son about the whole supporting-Saddam Hussein-against-Iran thing."

Rival, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's easy to say "them" when you're refering to some vague group of people on the other end of the planet. But keep in mind that not all people "wearing a turban and sporting a bushy beard" are terrorists. Not all of "them" had anything to do with recent events. If you're saying let all the people who are *responsible for causing death* starve, then I agree. But don't say "let them starve" when the people who are in danger of starving have nothing to do with any attacks.

The trouble here, Mindrape, is that it is not always easy to determine THEM from the rest of the people living over there. Perhaps the only solution is to remove the jagged thorn in our side, the people on the other end of the planet, completely.

I wouldn't be against that action if it meant the Western world would be free of Middle Eastern terrorists, would you?

Rival,I doubt you would be so eager to nuke if you had relatives over there. What if your parents lived there? Would you still want to annihilate it? It's easy to dehumanize people when you don't know any of them.

Plus, Rival-Troll, it's a matter of perspective. I suppose those over "there" would consider the US an extremely painful thorn in their side; and by your logic would be completely justified in nuking the US in order to relieve themselves of this irritation.

You wouldn't be against that if it meant the Middle East were free from Western Capitalist Pig-Dogs would you?

The Holocaust is entirely different. I don't recall the jews toppling any German skyscrappers full of people.

My main fear, is that this is culture class will topple society. How many terrorist attacks can the Western world handle before we begin to collapse inward? What happens if we take a mis-step in this "war" and lose the advantage? Do you really want to risk the society it has taken hundreds of years to construct because you feel empathic towards a group of poverity ridden countries that are riddled with terrorists?

What are you basing that on? As far as I know, bin Laden and his clan are the only ones. Maybe you could count the Taliban, but they didn't do anything besides harbor a possible war criminal.

At any rate, did you know that the U.S. has committed quite a few atrocities as well? I know Bush cited that we were attacked because the terrorists were jealous of our freedom, but anyone with half a brain should know that that is not a good reason to attack another county. You might want to learn what the U.S. has been up to in terms of killing. Take a look-- we're not as clean as we all would like to think. There's a reason why a lot of countries hate the U.S.

Let's just clear things up. NO COUNTRY is clear of misdoing. It's been done by the best and the worst. The point I was trying to make was, I don't want to see the US and it's allies bungle this job. If the only solution, the only path that lead to victory was the complete and ruthless destruction of the Middle East, it would be the right thing to do. I, for one, value the rights that generations of westerners have struggled to bestow upon us.

Those of us lucky enough to be born in the Western world, live extremely good lives. So good infact, we can argue the destruction of another way of life, from our homes that are mostly likely hundreds of miles apart. I, simply, do not want to lose this gift because of foriegn terrorists. Their ancestors did NOT work hard at creating a better society for their people. They followed their religous morals straight into their crappy situation.

Now, when it's obvious to them that OUR way of life, OUR society has grown to dominate the world, they become jealous. They may hide this jealousy behind any number of reasons, but they simply don't like that their lifestyle is not the forerunner in world politics.

Do we sit back and let these people, whether they be the minority or majority, destroy our way of life? We have the ability to save countless American/European lives by ending this carnage now. If we sit idley by until our society is crumbled by diseases and bombings, it'll be too late to save what we cherish most.

There ya go Basil you got it. If the damn thing had been funny we would have laughed, most Farkers can take a joke. Since it wasn't funny everyone seems to be trying to make a political statement out of it.

Basil - We'd gladly stay out of their lives if they could get by without constant war and starvation. Christ, these backwater nations have nukes now, their business is our business. I certainly don't want to wake up one day and find the atmosphere radioactive because General Pakistan Franco decided to nuke India. It all relates back to saving ourselves.

Rival: I, for one, value the rights that generations of westerners have struggled to bestow upon us.

The only reason the United States is here right now is because Westerners stole this land and murdered its Native American residents. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing about Western society that makes it superior to any other. Your bias clearly stems from the fact that you live here.

Rival - I would agree with you if it hadn't been for the past 55 years of navel gazing the Western world has gone through. The world is no longer allowed to go through the usual merging (conquering) of the weak by the strong - because the Western world has not allowed it. ANd the western world has created states such as Israel and Palestine that are inflaming the situation over in the Middle East. So alot of the situation is borne from our meddling.

So what I am saying is, since you made the bed, its time to sleep in it - Ethnic Cleansing is not a realistic option.

No, it's probably not. However, Ethnic re-education may be. I see very few roadblocks to Nato bombing nearly all Middle Eastern countries in the war against terror. Once we destroy their government, we put in a fresh one that is a touch more user friendly.

The only reason we bother with the Middle East is because we want their oil!

Rival, I don't necessarily oppose taking over hostile governments if they are killing and harming people-- but don't kill the people who are suffering under them! That's hopelessly pointless and counterproductive. Ya?

Anyways, I think our conversation is starting to annoy others so I shall cease at this point. But Rival, allow me to thank you for being civil (except for the part about nuking). A lot of farkers act like assholes if you try to have a decent argument with them. They get all biatchy and defensive and resort to childish name-calling and sarcasm. But you didn't. Cheers to that.